This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, pierre dot muller at ics-cnrs dot unistra dot fr, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:59:33 -0700
- Subject: Re: New ARI warning Wed May 23 01:55:03 UTC 2012
- References: <CADPb22QBYSRjoqrgX7p0d5KdAZ+kEk4Ga2YrfHMrm_t_yKCE6w@mail.gmail.com> <CADPb22QOSCV240MV2m0KmsXfNb9O5_WsA+7Jsjn1UJwigaNTrQ@mail.gmail.com> <4fbc9d77.0853b40a.641e.ffff90dbSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <CADPb22Qi0Zda439aieEGu26+GWf0y8XzBUkcpg-Kw1BUcjvPNA@mail.gmail.com> <87bold8l4d.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <201205282043.q4SKhksB010254@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <87ipejib8o.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120622171922.GK2799@adacore.com> <20120622173049.GL2799@adacore.com> <877guzgs7r.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120622190228.GM2799@adacore.com>
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
>> Tom Tromey wrote:
>> How about we flip the switch to C99 for 7.6?
>
> Sounds good to me. Do we want to be exclusive, rather than inclusive?
> In other words, say: The following C99 constructs are allowed, and
> maintain that list, rather that allow all of C99, and then list
> the features not allowed. I understand that some features are still
> not implemented (or portable?).
Which would be easier?
It feels like listing the allowed constructs would work best.
[We can still add text to list/discuss what's disallowed, but separately.]